I'm a US pilot who understands that the situation is biased towards US airlines, despite the legal definitions which allow the "status quo".
I've always felt that it has been unfair for US companies to have used used Berlin (the former Pan Am), Brussels and Spanish cities (Emery DC-8s ?), Paris (FEDEX 727?) etc as hubs, well aware that it is difficult to compare the various Euro countries and routes to the various US route networks (being inside of one country), at least from a purely LEGAL perspective. Reality doesn't always equate to legal definitions. However, although in reality it is an unfair situation and I certainly can't speak for other line employees.
For elements of the US govt to attempt to open up any US domestic routes to foreign airlines (other than Iberia's practice of picking pax up in Miami), by definition, would be a shattering precedent. If the US carriers were to pull out of internal Europe routes, then so be it. A gradual withdrawal might result in fewer jobs lost over here, and there might be less pressure from our "foreign trading partners" and those whose banks hold a significant amount of the US govt's debt (Japanese banks?), to open up our skies.
I fly domestic US, now and then to a Canadian city, and have no influence on this issue, anyway. If other US crewmembers and employees can't see the European perspective on this, assuming that these Pprune remarks are typical over there, then it is the same (ME) mentality which clouds thinking over here during our wonderful US airline mergers. Even a lady FEDEX attorney years ago, while chatting with me at an auto repair garage on Covington Pike Blvd, briefly tried to justify FEDEX's sleazy attempt to stick even the most senior Flying Tiger pilots below the most junior FEDEX pilot. After that very brief chat, no sleazy justification about mergers or foreign routes could really surprise me.
[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 30 June 2001).]